New RPM spec files. Was re: [omniORB] request for dropping site-packages/PortableServer* from omniorbpy

[Thomas Lockhart]

...
> Can you check that the spec file in CVS (and snapshot tarballs) does
> what you expect, and that it's OK in all other respects?  I intend to
> do the releases on Friday, so it would be great if you could check
> before then.

Seems to be OK. I made the minimum changes to get the tarball and 
directory names right in the spec file, and the packages built and 
installed cleanly. A simple test case ran correctly.

These pre-release SRPMs are posted at
   http://www.fourpalms.org/pub/omniORB/devel/
but beware that they are labeled as though they are 4.0.3/2.3.

I have one design issue or question for omniORBpy-standard: it contains 
some .py (and .pyc) files exposing some of omniORB at the top level of 
the namespace. It also contain omniORB.pth, which exposes (only) 
site-packages/omniORB/COS to the top level of the namespace.

In principle, we could probably have all files contained in 
site-packages/omniORB exposed via omniORB.pth, which allows us to leave 
out the remaining top level files altogether. Seems cleaner to me, 
*except* that python only respects these .pth files when they are 
underneath the default python library installation area. Which they will 
likely be for RPMs, but someone *could* rebuild them to install into 
another area which would then not be able to use the .pth file at all.

                          - Tom